Usually, scholarly treatises on ancient Graeco-Roman
society are not regarded as relevant for the contemporary
church. Andrew Clarke’s work, I suggest, is
an exception. In his Introduction, Clarke
identifies a problem to which modern Christians can
surely relate. He writes, “The first Christians were struggling
to establish an identity within the complex and multicultural
world of the early Roman Empire.” The Graeco-Roman
world surrounded the church and exerted powerful
social, political and religious forces as they endeavored
to express their faith.

Today’s church finds itself in a similar predicament,
asking, “What is our identity in a complex multicultural
world, and how do we engage our surrounding cultural
context?” Clarke has chosen to answer the question
of identity as it relates to church leadership. How
did the Early Church compare with Graeco-Roman and
Jewish societies in their understanding and practice
of leadership? Clarke proceeds to ask about the extent
the Early Church was influenced by models of leadership
from the administrative structures of the Graeco-Roman
society and the Jewish synagogue. Finally, he examines
the New Testament (primarily the Pauline letters)
for evidence of that influence and any corrective
teaching that it may have provided.

The foundation of Clarke’s study is a historical
survey of the theory and praxis of leadership,
as it existed in the first century Graeco-Roman world
(chs. 1-6). His analysis includes the various contexts
of leadership: the Graeco-Roman city (ch. 2), the Roman
colony and city (ch. 3), voluntary associations
(collegia/clubs
and guilds –ch. 4) and the family (ch.
5). He then expands his study to include leadership
within Jewish synagogues (ch. 6).

Clarke’s book is a masterful portrait of Graeco-Roman
institutions of leadership. Particularly illuminating
is his discussion of honor, which was the driving and
overarching motivation in Graeco-Roman society, especially
among those seeking positions of political governance
(49). Honor defined one’s status in society.
Clarke shows how honor was pursued through the widespread
practice of patronage, where those who occupied a
superior status in society were obligated to become
benefactors to those beneath them on the social ladder.
These, in response, bestowed honor in various ways
to their benefactors. This reciprocal arrangement
is shown to exist within all classes and institutions
of Graeco-Roman society.

Interestingly, within the aristocracy, status was
largely determined by family background, education
and inherited (or accumulated) wealth. These
persons already possessed an elite status and were granted
honor accordingly. Why then the pursuit of patronage?
Clark paints a negative picture of Graeco-Roman
aristocracy as largely self-serving. Individuals who
already belonged to the privileged class pursued the enhancement
of honor, power and prestige. What is clear from Clarke’s
portrayal of this societal phenomenon is that
not only was the quest for honor ubiquitous, but the
lust for authority, power and influence universal and
insatiable.

In the chapter on leadership in the Jewish synagogues
Clarke shows that the organization and governance
of the synagogue incorporated current honorific titles
and functions (e.g., the “synagogue leader”)
which closely paralleled the collegia, or Graeco-Roman
voluntary associations. This serves to confirm the
long-standing conviction (since the seminal work of
Martin Hengel) that Judaism did not escape the influence
of Hellenism but made major cultural concessions to
it.

It is a little surprising that, given the cultural
and social matrix in which the Church was created,
church leadership reflected the roles of civil government
already in place. This is verified in the Church’s
choice of ekklesia, the word for the civic
popular assembly, rather than “synagogue” for
their term of self-identity. Consequently, it is
not surprising to see in the New Testament evidence
that early Christians looked for their leaders to
evince qualities and characteristics similar to those
that defined leaders in the civic ekklesia (153).

However, apart from these terminological parallels,
New Testament apostolic teaching is anything but
an endorsement of secular models of leadership. Clarke
does not go the route of Baur, von Harnack and others
who identify leadership in the church as a second
century development, an early “catholicization” which
departed from a “charismatic” leadership
without any authoritative roles (172). Instead,
using mainly the witness of the Pauline corpus, Clarke
acknowledges the leadership roles that were clearly
in place in the Early Church. He shows that at numerous
points the church followed Graeco-Roman social conventions
in choosing their leaders. For example, the choice
of civic leaders with wealth and influence as local
church benefactors seems to explain why Erastus,
the oikonomos (city
treasurer), is singled out for mention in Romans
16:23. Further adoption of the values of Graeco-Roman
society is reflected in the evidence of patronage
(176-78) and the esteem of wisdom and rhetorical
eloquence in their leaders (174, 179). More commonly,
the writings of Paul give evidence that such values
created problems for the fledgling church, which
Clarke illustrates mainly from the Corinthian correspondence
(180-208).

The significant contribution of this work is the author’s
analysis of Pauline ministry in the Church and the
way Paul viewed himself as a leader. He clearly demonstrates
that contrary to the authoritarian and manipulative
ways of his opponents, Paul used his platform as
an apostle to teach an ethos that challenged the fundamental
views of the Graeco-Roman world on leadership. Its
relevance is at once apparent to those seeking to
adopt a leadership model faithful to New Testament teaching
and the values of God’s kingdom. Paul’s
understanding of leadership was not elitist, contra
the personality cult prevalent in Corinth (1 Cor.
3:4-9). In fact, he reminds the Corinthians that
among them are not many who are wise, powerful and
of noble birth (1 Cor. 1:26). Leadership is a calling,
the prerogative of which belongs to God, not man.
Even Paul’s
apostleship is the stewardship and exercise of a
charismatic gift (12:18ff), a calling that lies in
stark contrast to an elitist cadre of Corinthian
leaders (4:8-13). At the center of the controversy
was the conception of authority, its origin and manner
of exercise. Paul’s
apostolic authority was self-acknowledged, but must
be viewed in the contexts of his self-understanding
as a spiritual father (219-223), a model of Christ
to be imitated (223-28), and an apostle whose
calling is from God (228-32). In other words,
Paul’s
apostolic authority is functionally derived from
his apostolic calling and carried out as a stewardship
of the grace of Christ.

Clarke concludes that, in principle and example, Paul
teaches a model of leadership that is neither hierarchical
nor authoritarian. This is seen in his avoidance
of classic Graeco-Roman terms such as arche (“rule/ruler”), time (“honor”)
and telos (“power” or “authority” of
a magistrate) in reference to ecclesiastical offices.
Instead, Paul overwhelmingly uses the most basic
word for servant (diakonos),
or the verb for service (diakoneo) to describe
the role and function of a leader. For Paul, a church
leader, like the Lord who calls him, must be a servant-leader
(233-52).

Although the central thesis is virtually unassailable,
a few minor criticisms are warranted. For example,
Clarke’s emphasis on Paul’s avoidance
of some Greek terms for leadership does not equate
with his conclusion that Paul “did not regard
himself as a leader” (250), unless one defines
leadership in the precise character that Paul is
correcting. His consistent rejection of hierarchical
structures, as portrayed in the Graeco-Roman world
and mirrored by aberrant models in the Church, are
warranted but avoids treatment of passages where
some sense of hierarchy is unavoidable (e.g., 1 Cor.
12:28; cf Eph. 4:11), or where Paul seems to be exercising
or expressing supreme and unilateral authority as
Christ’s apostle
(1 Cor. 5:3, 9-13; 14:37-38; 1 Thess. 2:13; cf. Gal.
6:17). Certainly, a careful exegesis of 2 Corinthians
calls into question his conclusion that “Paul’s
ministry is challenged not when his apostleship is
challenged, but when believers are being drawn away
from Christ and his grace” (246). It is precisely
because Paul identifies the gospel with the Christ
he preaches and imitates (1 Cor. 11:1) within his
apostolic calling (Gal. 1:6-8; 2 Cor. 11:1-4), that
he passionately defends his apostleship (See 2 Cor.
11:6-33). To reject Paul’s apostleship is to
reject the gospel he preaches and the via crucis (God’s
power perfected through human weakness) that his
life models.

The above criticism should not diminish the assessment
that Andrew Clarke has produced a valuable work
which amply underscores Paul’s emphasis that leaders
are called to serve the church. His survey of
leadership in the Graeco-Roman world, while presented
through careful and meticulous research of primary sources,
is a well-written and very readable work. His
citations of Greek and Latin texts usually are accompanied
by translations, or rendered intelligible by their immediate
contexts. Part 2, which treats leadership in
the Christian community, is fair, balanced and exegetically
informed.